Welcome to the main discussion thread for the Marvel Cinematic Universe! This pinned post is here to establish some basic guidelines. All of the Media Forum rules
still apply.
- This thread is for talking about the live-action films, TV shows, animated works, and related content that use the Marvel brand, currently owned by Disney.
- While mild digressions are okay, discussion of the comic books should go in this thread
. Extended digressions may be thumped as off-topic.
- Spoilers for new releases should not be discussed without spoiler tagging for at least two weeks. Rather, each title should have a dedicated thread where that sort of conversation is held. We can mention new releases in a general sense, but please be courteous to people who don't want to be spoiled.
If you're posting tagged spoilers, make sure that the film or series is clearly identified outside the spoiler tagging. People need to know what will be spoiled before they choose to read the post.
Edited by Mrph1 on Jul 29th 2024 at 3:09:00 PM
I bring it up mainly because that was the sentiment both before and during Wandavision: that the whole show was greenlit as this comparatively dirt-cheap show they could just crank out to quickly get content onto the platform. And the relative cheapness is still most definitely true, but even then there's still a surprising amount that was put into it that it couldn't have been that cheap.
I think green-screening is a lot more obvious when the environments are clearly unrealistic vs. when they are. Not that it makes the cliffside from Ragnarok look any less cheap, but I imagine New England suburbia is a lot easier to handle. Further still Loki doesn't help things by adding unnatural hues to it's more outlanding environments, from Lamentis's purples to the Void's sickly greens.
Thinking on it, Mandalorian's done significantly better at this front. And part of it is the "Marvel house style' not looking as good under scrutiny, but I think another part is Mandalorian not having such extravagant environments and relying significantly more on physical sets.
I don't think Vision would've gone as quickly for the kill as Ultron did, though. Ultron basically caught Thanos by surprise, Vision wouldn't have.
Edited by Watchtower on Oct 21st 2021 at 10:22:51 AM
And annoyingly Endgame furthers this by showing the heroes winning by u-turning on this. Strange traded Tony Stark's life for the win, and likewize Nat traded her own.
Yeah, that's one of the weird things about the movies. It's oddly cynical for a big superhero spectacular.
- Avengers: We don't trade lives.
- Thanos: And that's why you lose and die.
- Avengers: Oh no, our ideals are bad and only lead to failure!
- Thanos: Haha, fools! (snaps away half the universe)
- Avengers: I guess we should trade lives.
- Thanos: Oh no! My only weakness! (dies twice and everyone lives happily ever after, except for the traded lives)
- Avengers: Just goes to show you that what really makes a hero is the merciless blood calculus of war.
Like. I've got no problem with characters sacrificing themselves to thwart the bad guy. On its own, that's fine. But it's weird to have your Moral Paragon character make the statement, "A hero doesn't do that," in the same movie. Especially when said Moral Paragon character is someone who not only does that, but is proud of doing that.
It's fine to do the thing, but weird to do the thing after you've had your Big Hero Guy say that doing the thing is wrong. Kinda like how Netflix DareDevil liked to have Matt talk about how killing is always bad and they should never kill villains, while conveniently having all the other characters kill the villains.
Edited by TobiasDrake on Oct 21st 2021 at 7:44:40 AM
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.Cap's line about "trading lives" always struck be as such a blatant lie. He was trading lives, any lives lost (mostly Wakandan soldiers) during their delaying action while they attempted to remove the stone from Vision were lives traded for the slim chance Vision would survive the operation. And they did all this while gambling with the lives of half the universe's population.
You and I remember Budapest very differentlyWhat a big coincidence the discussion of Hulk having his own movie earlier because there actually are rumors about that happening.
Marvel Studios' Hulk: New Movie Rumored to Adapt World War Hulk Plot
![]()
![]()
I mean, the key nuance is that the Avengers are willing to sacrifice themselves while Thanos is willing to sacrifice others. It's a small and very simple nuance, but it's one that's easily recognizable as the difference between heroic actions and villainous ones. The "blood calculus" as you call it isn't a mere numbers game, the whos, whats, and whys do have an impact on things, among others.
![]()
Yeah, but that nuance gets a bit lost when Vision is attempting to sacrifice himself and Steve is denying him that opportunity. The topic of sacrificing others wasn't under discussion.
- Vision volunteers to sacrifice himself.
- Steve refuses. "We don't trade lives."
- Avengers lose.
- Nat and Tony sacrifice themselves.
- Avengers win.
Edited by TobiasDrake on Oct 21st 2021 at 8:14:06 AM
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.The problem is they didn’t try to trade enough of their lives the first time
And also the cash in value of Vision vs Tony
Forever liveblogging the AvengersIt's also not helped by the fact that sacrificing others works out fantastically for Thanos. He achieves everything he sets out to do, and the Avengers are forced to both invent time travel and start trading lives in order to undo the damage he causes. There are no negative consequences for him doing things the "wrong" way.
Thanos trades lives and wins. The Avengers refuse to trade lives and lose. Then the Avengers trade lives and win.
The movies make trading lives seem like a pretty killer strategy, regardless of whose life is being traded. Nat and Hawkeye may have the moral high ground in how they obtain the Soul Gem, but the end result between their attempt and Thanos's is exactly identical.
Edited by TobiasDrake on Oct 21st 2021 at 8:16:37 AM
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.The Weekly Planet reminded me that there were plans to do a MCU Hulk television series on ABC, led by Guillermo del Toro. Deadline at the time
noted that it would have been an "origin story", using a mixture of puppetry, prosthetics and CGI. The plans were ultimately passed up for Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.. As of 2018
, he still has the script in his possession, but del Toro has moved on from comic book films.
That being said, the Arrowverse has a surprising amount of recurring and diverse big CG characters, and their shows (roughly 3 million per episode) are way cheaper compared to the Disney+ Marvel shows (roughly 12-25 million per episode
). Combine that with the Marvel shows generally having shorter seasons compared to the network TV demands of The CW's 20-24 episode seasons.
Regarding Nia DiCosta's words, we should remember that Infinity War is three years old at this point, and the writers were tasked with making the Avengers lose. It was going to be someone's fault because the ending was predetermined possibly as early as the start of Phase 3.
And regarding the whole bit with "we don't trade lives", and not wanting to trade Vision's life, well, there's one big thing to consider: Wanda. It would be incredibly demoralizing for Wanda to see her teammates immediately jump to dehumanizing the man she loves. She wouldn’t let them sacrifice Vision. And the last thing anyone needs is Wanda to be pissed at her allies as well as having to deal with Thanos. The only reason Wanda eventually went through with sacrificing Vision was because they had completely run out of options.
Okey Dokey!In fairness destroying the stone would have prevented the snap but wouldn’t prevent Thanos with x stones coming by and fucking up Earth
You want all the guns you can muster for that so if there was a chance to destroy the stone and keep Vision it was the right thing to do for multiple reasons
Thanos’ armies were going to come either way. And they got so close to managing it.
It could have been phrased better than “we don’t trade lives” but I think it was the right call
Forever liveblogging the AvengersThat's my thought as well.
Vision is pretty powerful, and having one more soldier in the fight would have helped a lot.
And maybe, just maybe, nobody wanted to sacrifice a friend when it wasn't necessary. Like, what Nat and Tony did was something that 100% had to happen. Vision, at that point, didn't need to die.
It's only natural to want to save a friend when you think it's possible. Sacrificing someone else if necessary is a cruel necessity, but if you have, say five years to do so before everyone's head explodes, and you decide to shoot them in the face right then and there, no hesitation when you still had time to find another potential solution, then that's pretty cold hearted.
Also, while Cap does say he doesn't trade lives, I firmly believe if he was the one who needed to sacrifice himself, he wouldn't hesitate. Cap won't trade other people's lives, but he's more than willing to put himself on the chopping block.
One Strip! One Strip!
It's actually very different from both of those things, because those aren't moral stances. They're acts of desperation by people presently backed into a corner with little time to think and with few if any options.
"We don't trade lives," is an assertion of the Avengers' moral fiber issued by the Avengers #1 moral leader. And it's something that should rightly be followed up on, if you're going to make a fuss of having your story's main moral leader say it.
Steve draws a thematic line in the sand: trading lives is bad. Thanos trades lives, and that makes him bad. The Avengers don't trade lives, and that makes them good. What should naturally follow a statement of the story's moral code like this is that Thanos's willingness to throw lives away undermines him and causes his undoing, while the Avengers' respect for the sanctity of life is rewarded and leads them to triumph.
But that's not what happens. Thanos wins by trading lives, so the Avengers start trading lives and then the Avengers win. The Avengers trade lives more morally than Thanos does, but it doesn't actually make any sort of difference in the story: whosoever is presently trading lives is the victor.
Vormir is the most direct point of comparison. Thanos cruelly murders Gamora. As a result, he grieves, he gets the Soul Gem, and then he achieves his goals and wins. Natasha sacrifices herself for the Avengers. The Avengers grieve, they get the Soul Gem, and then they achieve their goals and win. The outcomes are exactly the same despite one method allegedly being superior to the other.
If the statement is supposed to be, "We're good because we don't trade the lives of others, only our own," then Steve should say that. And then it should be followed through on with consequences for the Avengers doing things right and Thanos doing things wrong. Either Gamora's soul in the Soul Gem should somehow undercut Thanos at the eleventh hour and cause him to fail, or Nat and Clint should be rewarded with something more than what Thanos got.
If you're trying to say that Character A did Thing wickedly and Character B did Thing virtuously, you demonstrate that difference through the consequences of the way they did them. Endgame says that Thanos is bad for sacrificing Gamora and the Avengers are good because Nat sacrificed herself, but it doesn't really matter how you get the Soul Gem. It's the same outcome either way.
Rewarding characters for making good choices and punishing characters for making bad choices is, like, storytelling 101. The Infinity War duology is too busy being grim and edgy to grasp that basic concept.
Edited by TobiasDrake on Oct 21st 2021 at 9:11:18 AM
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.Steve's problem is that he's too wrapped up in his own leadership.
He totally believes in self-sacrifice. If he could stop Thanos by trading his own life, he'd do it in a heartbeat. But he refuses to allow anyone under his command to sacrifice their lives, because as far as he's concerned, he'd still be the one responsible. Even if they choose to lay down their lives, even if it's their idea, he still views the decision as being his, and he's not going to choose to sacrifice someone.
I think the tragedy of Infinity War is that there are some people who would happily lay their lives down to stop Thanos and others don't. Tony, Cap, Natasha, Clint are perfect examples of those who want to do that, on top of making sure no one around them that they care for dies as well. The other heroes on the other hand, aren't really in the same boat. Doctor Strange, the Guardians of the Galaxy, Falcon and especially Spider-Man really don't want to die at all. And that attitude, combined with the previous mentalities of the other heroes is why decisions are so hard to make.
"I'm Mr. Blue, woah-woah-ooh..."Let's be real, Doctor Strange’s whole plan really only makes sense if his intended endgame was "Destroying the Infinity Stones altogether". I mean, Scarlet Witch was nearly able to beat both versions of Thanos by herself (holding back Infinity War Thanos who had five stones using one hand, while destroying the Mind Stone with the other; then tossing Endgame Thanos around like a ragdoll). And Infinity War Thanos needed to use the stones to go toe to toe with Strange. That whole line about him seeing 14,000,605 futures and only one where they defeat Thanos? The Doylist reason why that line exists was so people wouldn't ask, "Why didn't the heroes act differently?" because the Avengers should theoretically be able to curb stomp Thanos.
It's also worth noting that in the Infinity War scenario, Vision dying isn’t like Steve crashing the plane or Tony using the Infinity Gauntlet. They both did that of their own accord. To destroy the Mind Stone would have required forcing Wanda to literally kill the man she loves.
On a sidenote, the whole reason Wanda gravitates towards Steve is because she seems to share the same sense of self-sacrifice. She chose to guard the drill in Age of Ultron (and even shooed Pietro away when he tried to grab her) knowing she was risking her life (and almost died if not for Vision saving her). Or her, Sam, Clint and Scott sacrificing their freedom in Civil War so Steve and Bucky could complete the mission and stop Zemo. Or her taking down her sitcom reality at the end of WandaVision (admittedly, that one's a bit of a stretch, since the Hex was Wanda's own accidental doing, but I think it counts. Wanda didn't need to let everyone go. Once she defeated Agatha, anyone who could've stopped her had been dealt with. But she still willingly chose to give up her ideal life because it was more important to let everyone else go).
Okey Dokey!Oof. That's right. Vision may be choosing to die, but due to the nature of the Stone, it's Wanda who has to pull the trigger. Sure, she does do it at the end, and it fails because of Starlord DUE TO REASONS BEYOND HER CONTROL, but it's still a cruel thing to do. And lets be fair. Even if they'd killed Vision right then and there, there's no guarantee that Thanos still couldn't have used the Time Stone to rewind everything back to before it happened, since we don't really know if it has a limited on how far it can turn things back, especially when working in conjunction with the other stones.

Infinity War has this throughline that the heroes aren't willing to "trade lives" where as Thanos is.
And annoyingly Endgame furthers this by showing the heroes winning by u-turning on this. Strange traded Tony Stark's life for the win, and likewize Nat traded her own.
Which kind of falls flat for me, as Steve is a huge proponent for lying down on the wire if it saves lives. He did it in World War 2, and learns to respect Tony in the avengers for being willing to do it himself. So it feels shallow that the writers introduced this new virtue to the Avengers, only for them to then stoop to Thanos' level immediately.
But regardless, killing Vision wouldn't have achieved anything if Thanos gained the time stone. (I also wouldn't be surprised if the soul gem allowed him to also raise the dead in a different way)
The same argument could have been made against Quill and Gamora, who refused to trade Gamora's life for the soul stone's location until it was too late.